The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-11-01

THE STATES SHARE.

WASHINGTON, October 24.-Decision was
rendered by the supreme court of the United
States today, in three cases of the United
States, appellant against the states of Louis
ana, Alabama and Mississippi These were
suits brought in the court OF claims by the
states named TO recover from the United
States five percent of the net proceeds of sales
of public lands within their limits. and also
to recover indemnity for swamp lands purch-
ased by individuals, the proceeds of which
were by statute directed to be applied, as far
as necessary, TO the reclamation of such lands
by means of levecs and drains. The United
States maintain that the court of claims had
no jurisdiction to determine Il cause in which
a state sued the United States; that part of
the claims were barred by the statute of linn
it0tions and that the United States was en-
titled to make 4 set of or coUntCT-claim on ac-
count OF unpaid direct taxes due from the
states of Louisiana, Alabama ind Mississippi,
under the act OF August 9TH, 1861. The court
Of claims decided that it had jurisdiction that
the disputed items were not barred by the
statute of limitations; and that a set oil or
c0unter-claim could not be allowed. This
court allirms the Judgment.
Opinion by Justice Field.
WASHINGTON, October 25.-The Star this
evening says:
Counsel who are striving to maintain the valid
fly of the Kansas and Iowa prohibitoly legislation
before the United states supreme court are earnest
IL endeGNoring IN get additional argument before
the court before the decision shall be an
uounced. The denial of motion TO advance the
eases pending ON the docket and TO withhold the
decision upon cases already argued was apl arently
a disappointment 10 the prOhlOitionists. They seem
to 81 that the further argument of their cause is
important if not essential.
After the decree of the cour, denying the motion
TO advance The pending cases announced Al
torney-Geucml Bradford, of Kansas, offered n mo-
ton in the supreme court Yesterday 10 reopen the
cases hitherto argued ana submitted, on thegrJund
that counsel on thc other side ur the liquor inter
esd violated an agreement, that after having agreed
TO submit the case on briefs they put IN an oral ar
gum mt. The court directed that the motion be
printed. Those who are opposing prohibition
contend That there was no violation
| of any agreement, They say There was
an agreement tetwcen counsel representing
both sides in Kansas, but 1t did not extend beyond
the counsel then IN tie case; that the counsel then
IN the case did NOT suhms any oral argument, but
MI. Cuoate, of New YORK, VINO was Specially cm-
plOycdly The brewers ~ New York, made guNcUt;
that no agreement made between counsel iu kansas
could Doc binding upnu aiIn, sud hence the claim Of
I q violation of agreement not Wcll founded
Attgrucy-O General Bradford and Packard, counsel
FOX prnhittiuuisiS il conversation with q Star re-
porter said ihat they could not conceive THAT lhe
OcuU Of the motion tl atvanCe by the lourt iInphe,
tnNt The forthcoming decision viii Dc adverse 80 tile
! prohb.uon.stS
Tins lisa question of the greatest importance said
Mr. Packard "A decision oyerthrOWing prohibition
legislation would De very widespread inits elects
1T Is one ofthc most imp lrtaut lar reaching CUES
tons che coUr. nas ever bad before IT, and stands
l. reason that the court would not rcilSe additional
light u st cOntcal lated decision against The valid
! ity Of tie prOhibitoTy statutes. The court wOulC
| naturally want all the Light il could obtain befor'
announcing such decision"